REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1430 OF 2007

COMMR.OF POLICE AND ORS                       Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

SANDEEP KUMAR                                 Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This  Appeal  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned  

judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 31.07.2006.

The facts have been given in the impugned judgment and  

hence we are not repeating the same here, except wherever  

necessary.

The  respondent  herein-Sandeep  Kumar  applied  for  the  

post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in 1999.    In the  

application form it was printed :

“12(a) Have you ever been arrested, prosecuted  kept  under  detention  or  bound  down/fined,  convicted  by  a  court  of  law  for  any  offence  debarred/disqualified  by  any  Public  Service  Commission  from  appearing  at  its  examination/selection  or  debarred  from  any  Examination, rusticated by any university or any  other education authority/Institution.”

Against that column the respondent wrote : 'No'.   

:1:

It is alleged that this is a false statement made by  

the respondent because he and some of his family members  

were  involved  in  a  criminal  case  being  FIR  362  under  

Section 325/34 IPC. This case was admittedly compromised on  

18.01.1998 and the respondent and his family members were  

acquitted on 18.01.1998.   

In response to the advertisement issued in January 1999  

for  filing  up  of  certain  posts  of  Head  Constables  

(Ministerial), the respondent applied on 24.02.1999 but did  

not mention in his application form that he was involved in  

the aforesaid criminal case.

The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection  

to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial).  On  

03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the  

first  time  he  disclosed  that  he  had  been  involved  in  a  

criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been  

compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted.

On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him  

asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature for  

the post should not be cancelled because he had concealed  

the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case  

and had made a wrong statement in his application form.  

The respondent submitted his reply  on 17.08.2001 and an  

additional reply but the  authorities  were  not  satisfied

:2:

with the same and on 29.05.2003 cancelled his candidature.

The  respondent  filed  a  petition  before  the  Central  

Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004.  

Against  that  order  the  respondent  filed  a  writ  petition  

which has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence  

this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted  

that the respondent should have disclosed the fact of his  

involvement in the criminal case even if he had later been  

acquitted. Hence, it was submitted that his candidature was  

rightly cancelled.  

We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that  

the  cancellation  of  his  candidature  was  illegal,  but  we  

wish to give our own opinion in the matter.

When the incident happened the respondent must have  

been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often  

commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been  

condoned.  After all, youth will be youth.  They are not  

expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people.  

Hence,  our  approach  should  be  to  condone  minor  

indiscretions  made  by  young  people  rather  than  to  brand  

them as criminals for the rest of their lives.

In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean  

Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which  

for committing a minor offence  of stealing a loaf of bread

:3:

for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief  

for his whole life.

The  modern  approach  should  be  to  reform  a  person  

instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.

We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students  

mentioned   by  Lord  Denning  in  his  book  'Due  Process  of  

Law'.  It  appears  that  some  students  of  Wales  were  very  

enthusiastic  about the Welsh language and they were upset  

because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the  

English language and not in Welsh. Then came up to London  

and  invaded  the  High  Court.   They  were  found  guilty  of  

contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months  

by the High Court Judge.  They filed an appeal before the  

Court  of  Appeals.  Allowing  the  appeal,  Lord  Denning  

observed :-

“I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point.  He says that the sentences were excessive.  I do  not think they were excessive, at the time they  were  given  and  in  the  circumstances  then  existing. Here was a deliberate interference with  the  course  of  justice  in  a  case  which  was  no  concern  of  theirs.   It  was  necessary  for  the  judge  to  show  –  and  to  show  to  all  students  everywhere – that this kind of thing cannot be  tolerated.  Let  students  demonstrate,  if  they  please,  for  the  causes  in  which  they  believe.  Let them make their protests as they will.  But  they  must  do  it  by  lawful  means  and  not  by  unlawful.   If  they  strike  at  the  course  of  justice  in  this  land  –  and  I speak both for

:4:

England and Wales – they strike at the roots of  society itself, and they bring down that which  protects them. It is only by the maintenance of

law  and  order  that  they  are  privileged  to  be  students and to study and live in peace.  So let  them support the law and not strike it down.

But now what is to be done?  The law has  been vindicated by the sentences which the judge  passed on Wednesday of last week.  He has shown  that law and order must be maintained, and will  be maintained.  But on this appeal, things are  changed.  These students here no longer defy the  law.  They have appealed to this court and shown  respect for it.  They have already served a week  in prison.  I do not think it necessary to keep  them inside it any longer.  These young people  are no ordinary criminals.  There is no violence,  dishonesty or vice in them.  On the contrary,  there was much that we should applaud.  They wish  to  do  all  they  can  to  preserve  the  Welsh  language.  Well may they be proud of it.  It is  the language of the bards – of the poets and the  singers – more melodious by far than our rough  English tongue.  On high authority, it should be  equal in Wales with English. They have done wrong  – very wrong – in going to the extreme they did.  But, that having been shown, I think we can, and  should, show mercy on them.  We should permit  them  to  go  back  to  their  studies,  to  their  parents and continue the good course which they  have so wrongly disturbed.”

[ Vide : Morris  Vs.  Crown Office, (1970) 2 Q.B.               114 ]

In our opinion, we should display the same wisdom as  

displayed by Lord Denning.

As  already  observed  above,  youth  often  commit  

indiscretions, which are often condoned.

It is true that in the application form the respondent  

did not mention that he was involved in a criminal case  

:5:  

under Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this

out of fear that if he did so he would automatically be  

disqualified.

At any event, it was not such a serious offence like  

murder,  dacoity  or  rape,  and  hence  a  more  lenient  view  

should be taken in the matter.

For the reasons above given, this Appeal has no force  

and it is dismissed.   No costs.

......................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

......................J.         (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) NEW DELHI; MARCH 17, 2011.

:6: